Working Paper 16 From “between” to Europe: Remapping Finland in the post-Cold War Europe Miika Raudaskoski Karelian Institute, University of Eastern Finland May 2016 EUBORDERSCAPES (290775) is Funded by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme (FP7-SSH-2011-1), Area 4.2.1 The evolving concept of borders 2 Abstract East and West have traditionally played a significant role in Finnish national narratives and identity politics. The border and a constructed imagination of Finland as an East-West borderland have been functional elements of nation-buildingsand through the decades have been rooted in national narratives and self-descriptions. (Harle and Moisio 2000; Browning 2008). The East and West have both actively used for constructing, defining and shaping Finnish identity and place among other European nations. The 19th century nation-building was much about making a distinction to both former mother country Sweden and Russian Empire, like a famous phrase “We are not Swedes anymore, Russians we won’t become, so let us be Finns”1 describes. Finnishness has been much being on the border between Eastern and Western cultural and political spheres which has shaped national narratives and collective memories. (Browning 2008; Browning and Lehti 2007). Vilho Harle and Sami Moisio (2000, 57–64) argues how national identity policy project has been constructed by very clearly defined distinction between Finnishness and Russianness, but various connections with (Western) Europeaness and especially Nordic countries need to be notified as well. If Russia has been, especially since the late 19th century, the most significant “negative Other”, conceptual affiliation with Europe and Nordic has played an important role as a reference or target “group”. This article argues that there have been multiple territorial imaginations through which Finland has been (re)-mapped and defined also during the so-called post-Cold War period. Many of these distinctions and affiliations can be seen by analyzing competing discourses of the Finnish-Russian border and territorial imaginations that have been produced in border-related debates. 1 A famous syllogism of 19th century nation-building, cited in Engman 2009, 193. 3 From “between” to Europe: Remapping Finland in the post-Cold War Europe Introduction East and West have traditionally played a significant role in Finnish national narratives and identity politics. The current territory of Finland was a battlefield of Swedish and Russian empires until 1809 when the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland was established. The Finnish-Russian border was lastly relocated in 1944 after the Continuation War and territorial transfers to the Soviet Union, mainly Karelian territories and the Pechanga Region, were defined in the Treaty of Paris in 1947. A history embroidered with several wars and territorial shifts has been actively used for nation-building in the 19th century Finland and thereafter. The border and a constructed imagination of Finland as an East-West borderland have been functional elements of nation- buildingsand through the decades have been rooted in national narratives and self-descriptions. (Harle and Moisio 2000; Browning 2008). The East and West have both actively used for constructing, defining and shaping Finnish identity and place among other European nations. The 19th century nation-building was much about making a distinction to both former mother country Sweden and Russian Empire, like a famous phrase “We are not Swedes anymore, Russians we won’t become, so let us be Finns”2 describes. Finnishness has been much being on the border between Eastern and Western cultural and political spheres which has shaped national narratives and collective memories. (Browning 2008; Browning and Lehti 2007). Vilho Harle and Sami Moisio (2000, 57–64) argues how national identity policy project has been constructed by very clearly defined distinction between Finnishness and Russianness, but various connections with (Western) Europeaness and especially Nordic countries need to be notified as well. If Russia has been, especially since the late 19th century, the most significant “negative Other”, conceptual affiliation with Europe and Nordic has played an important role as a reference or target “group”. This article argues that there have been multiple territorial imaginations through which Finland has been (re)-mapped and defined also during the so-called post-Cold War period. Many of these distinctions and affiliations can be seen by analyzing competing discourses of the Finnish-Russian border and territorial imaginations that have been produced in border-related debates. Borders and bordering in the post-Cold War Europe As a political concept ‘border’ has become multilayered and diverged during the past decades of enlarged border studies. The end of the Cold War juxtaposition in the turn of 1990s opened a floor for even broader and multiple debate on ontology, significance and future of state borders in a ‘new Europe’. The idea of a ‘borderless world’ was popular and much reflected during the 1990s, and both globalization and optimism raised by the end of East-West diverge catalyzed theoretical and political discourses of diminishing nation-states and territorial borders in Europe. Political integration within the European Union fed cosmopolitanism and optimism among 2 A famous syllogism of 19th century nation-building, cited in Engman 2009, 193. 4 Europeans that old political boundaries between nation-states could be transcended and even diminished in the future. In parallel, however, the European Union was developed towards integrated community having free movement within but even strongly controlled and guarded external borders. (Calhoun 2007; Newman 2006) Difficulties to create a common foreign and security policy for the union indicates how the member states have been disinclined to renounce their territorial and static sovereignty. Nation-states as key units of a global policy and international relations have not lost their significance, and like economic and political crisis in the EU have shown, populist nationalism and demands of stronger, nationally controlled and fenced state borders have raised during the last years. (Borg 2015, 1–7; Cooper 2015, 447–449; Kinnvall 2015). Questions of European borders, where ‘Europe’ ends and what does it actually includes - which regions, territories and people are counted as Europeans, where European borders goes have been much reflected among scientists and policymakers. Particularly European integration has catalyzed various analysis, remarks, criticism and visions concerning what Europe is and means. (Borg 2015; Wiesner&Schmidt-Klein 2014). Moreover, a relation between ‘Europe’ and the European Union has become critically evaluated and conceptual distinction has been made, despite in many cases equals sign has been too carelessly drawn between them. Recent critical study of ‘Europeanization’ as a political discourse and a concept of analysis has much evaluated this relationship. The EU-Europe, or EUrope, forms, however, an important political and also spatial imagination that both goes beyond very traditional geographic and territorial definition of Europe. Since the end of the Cold War, the European Union has enlarged from the Western European community to continent-wide political union with ambitious aims to become a global power as European Union instead of community of nation-states. Enlargements since 1995 when Cold War neutrals Austria, Finland and Sweden joined in to accession of Croatia in 2013 have changed a nature of the union but also raised questions of European borders, not the least a very controversial and still ongoing on-off-process with Turkey. Wider Europe initiative and European Neighbourhood Policy launched in 2003-2004, like European Security Strategy and attempts to create a common foreign and security policy deal much with bordering the Union, and defining spatial imaginaries within and beyond ‘Europe’. This article argues that “the post-Cold War” is not an epochal or clear-cut period in terms of state borders and bordering that can be divided periods of cosmopolitanism, re-securitization and reappraise of geopolitics. Nevertheless, the New York terror attacks in September 2001 radically changed an idea and practice of state bordering, and as anti-terror policy multiple surveillance and control systems have been introduced in state borders. The post-9/11 securitization has gone beyond territorial state borders to airports, harbours and other nodes of traffic, which has enlarged a concept of security border and also much transformed legal and political systems of border control. By looking exact counts, like number of border walls and fences there is a clear difference between the 1990s and 2000s, but then securitization and fortification of state borders is not a new phenomenon. State borders as demarcation lines of territorial integrity and 5 sovereignty, like definer of national identity have not disappeared but transmuted also during the ‘post-Cold War’ period. Through a prism of the Finnish-Russian border this article evaluates what kind of spatial imaginations of nation-state and supranationalities, like ‘Europe’, ‘West’ and ‘East’ have been produced and (re)conceptualized in Finnish political debates during the last two decades. Methodology and sources From Nordic nexus to the core Europe (1990-1995) After the Second World War the Finnish ontological existence and identity were re-constructed. Territorial losses